Desistance and recidivism: the Sky News and Jordanian government model

It seems that Sky News and the Jordanian government have alerted us to new strategies in the fight against recidivism and desistance. It is so brilliant and simple, and I wonder why the criminal justice system has not adopted it wholesale before now. 


No need to ponder whether community-based punishments or prison programmes are best at reducing re-offending rates. The answer is simple; listen to those who are guilty of former crimes (i.e. phone hacking, torture) say they will not commit these, or other, crimes again, and accept it.  

Well, that is more or less what Head of News at Sky News, John Ryley told the Leveson inquiry yesterday (above). He thinks "it is highly unlikely in the future that Sky will consider breaking the law". When pressed further on his lack of overt support for the law, he added that he was "pretty much ruling it out". Now imagine if someone who burgled houses for a living responded in a similar manner in a court of law. 

Whilst I note that Ofcom have started an investigation into Sky's admission of two counts of email hacking, let us not forget that this is a criminal, not civil, offence. Sky News have fallen foul of the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. 


Using honesty as a tool to divert any guilt, Ryley admits that he was not as aware of these Acts as he should have been. Given that he will have been aware of Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire's criminal activities, surely Ryley, obviously not an unintelligent man, could have then made the fairly obvious connection between phone hacking and email hacking. 

Falun Gong practitioner tortured by guards in a labour camp in China
(c) Asdf12345

Similarly, the UK government has accepted that the government of Jordan will not use evidence obtained through torture in any case against Abu Qatada. Yet Jordan regularly tortures and detains people based on evidence gained through torture. The latest Human Rights Watch report states:

Perpetrators of torture enjoy near-total impunity. The redress process begins with a deficient complaint mechanism, continues with lackluster investigations and prosecutions, and ends in police court, where two of three judges are police-appointed police officers. 

Would the UK government accept similar reassurances from China if it was returning a an illegal immigrant Falun Gong practitioner? Regardless of the innocence or guilt of the fictional Falun Gong practitioner, if the UK is truly a civilised society and a respected guardian of global human rights, we should not be returning anyone to face a trial overseas where torture and abuse of  human rights is so intrinsically linked to justice.


We try and detain illegal immigrants for crimes committed in the UK. We have the means to try Qatada here. We choose not to. 

Free music download: police and thieves – the police

Robert Peel

Please see the post below for further background.

The Independent adds that SOCA's notice on the closed RnBXclusive.com also stated:

"Soca has the capability to monitor and investigate you and can inform your internet service provider of these infringements. You may be liable for prosecution and the fact that you have received this message does not preclude you from prosecution”.

The message is clear; individuals will be prosecuted even if you happen upon the website by accident. Will you? SOCA obviously see themselves as the guardian of online copyright infringement. Are they?

Although the Digital Economy Act (DEA) 2010 that came into force in June 2010, allows for the criminalisation of individuals who consistently download/share files illegally (paragraph 42), the onus initially falls on ISPs to curb those who regularly fall foul of the Act.

To set this in context, the DEA was rushed through parliament just before the UK national elections in 2010. Critics point to the role of Lord Mandelson in pushing through the DEA without sufficient scrutiny, after the music industry lobbied him; there is evidence that the British Phonographic Industry drafted part of the DEA. Although this part has since been dropped, it reveals the extent to which commercial interests can influence law and order.

One particular bone of contention for ISPs is the aspect of 'technical measures'. ISPs may be called on to restrict access of the internet, or even possibly remove access all together, from those customers who regularly transgress. Ofcom, who oversee the DEA, can take action against ISPs who fail to report these acts. Two of the largest ISPs, BT and TalkTalk, have appealed against the DEA.

A smaller broadband provider, aaisp.net, have provided an analysis of the DEA from their perspective here. They highlight the seemingly incompatible roles that they have to play.

Copyright (c) Liccia

At the same time as trying to grow their business and retain customers, they have to report on these same customers, resulting in a loss of trust and the likely loss of this custom to alternative ISPs. When customers transfer to a new ISPs, the history of the notices levied against the customers disappear, meaning that the copyright holder has to start again with any action. Nobody wins.

In fact, as TalkTalk point out in their Statement of Facts and Grounds, there are any number of ways that individuals can download music freely and, therefore, get round the DEA.

Whilst this document is obviously specific to TalkTalk, and their particular grievances, it highlights a number of concerns with the DEA that other less powerful organisations may not have had the finances to shed light on. For those interested, I would refer you to paragraphs 199-212, and the concerns raised therein.

Given that many features of public life are now dealt with on the internet only, including some government services, the restriction/removal of internet access seems a punitive measure. A denial of the right to participate as a full citizen of the UK is only going to further marginalise and exclude those who have less ability to participate as citizens in the first place.

A report by the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) also found that there was an imbalance between copyright enforcement and innovation. The report illustrates how the music industry might help consumers find the products that they are looking for legally, at a reasonable price, and suggest that the music industry acknowledge that file-sharing is not the only reason for the relative decline in CDs, vinyl etc.

Its authors suggest:

“The music industry and artists should innovate and actively reconnect with their sharing fans rather than treat them as criminals...Alternative sources of income generation for artists should be considered instead of actively monitoring the online behaviour of UK citizens.” (Bert Cammaerts) 

“the DEA has given too much consideration to the interests of copyright holders, while ignoring other stakeholders such as users, ISPs, and new players in the creative industry...” (Bingchun Meng)

The clumsy use of SOCA as a Big Brother-type sentinel guarding the copyright 'safe' also demonstrates how far(?) states have moved towards finding ways of policing the internet.

Nationally, the UK still relies heavily on the authoritarian, Peelian force, albeit online, to deter, and warn its public of future, punitive sanctions. However, the internet is global. Any tech-savvy individual could re-route their IP address, or anonymise it, to download free materials, rendering geo-spatial boundaries meaningless, and the forces within them powerless.

Just as the LSE calls for innovation from the music industry to combat the alleged impact of file-sharing, perhaps it is time for the law and order industry to look afresh at regulating cybercrime.

Free music downloads: police and thieves - the thieves

Nipper hears His Masters Voice (c) NewYork1956

Using the term 'free music download' on www.google.co.uk, this is what my search result revealed.

On the first page of results, amongst the odd service that I am aware of, such as Spotify and we7, were a host of others including mp3raid, WuZAM and beemp3. In fact, the latter named entities ranked higher than the former services. Why?

I am writing this post with reference to the news that the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) closed down a music download website, RnBXclusive.com, on Tuesday. A man has been arrested, and bailed, on fraud charges. This follows the recent high profile arrest of Kim DotCom, who ran the music sharing website Megaupload.

SOCA had posted a message up on the defunct website declaring:

"As a result of illegal downloads, young, emerging artists may have had their careers damaged. If you have illegally downloaded music, you will have damaged the future of the music industry."

Who are the “young, emerging artists” who have had their careers damaged? Have they already signed a record deal? Is it with a major or independent label? Are they unsigned? Without them, is there no “future of the music industry”? Do SOCA know something that the music industry do not, because the music industry is unsure what the future holds.

Beyond these words, the assumption is that the “future of the music industry” will look much the same as it does now. Moreover, the statement presumes that illegal downloading, or more to the point, the availability of free musical content online is a bad thing. Is it?

Lady Gaga (c) pink_daisy

There is a coalition of artists who believe that the use of free music can be a means to building an audience. The likes of Lady Gaga gave away free music as part of her business model.

That does not mean that artists are happy at their works/copyright being abused, but equally, they are coming to terms with illegal downloading and file-sharing. A music industry think tank advocates artists giving their albums away for free, and discusses how artists might profit from it whilst simultaneously defeating the services that provide free downloads of their material.

Either way, artists appear not to want to criminalise those who download their material for free. From well-known artists in the UK, to smaller, independent artists in the U.S.A., they see state regulation of the internet as a bad thing for artists.

Recording artists have long been dealt a raw deal. After years of record companies offering a pittance to their artists for their work, the internet appeared to offer salvation and a chance to control their destinies.

However, recording artists receive an even smaller portion of the pie when signing up with the new digital record companies of today. The likes of Amazon, iTunes, Last.fm and Spotify pay their artists even less than their traditional counterparts. Just who is stealing from recording artists?

In the case of RnBXclusive.com, SOCA have decided that the thieves are largely males, aged 18-25, who have downloaded music from this site. However, as my search above demonstrates, there are a variety of sites where people can supposedly download music 'legally' and 'for free'.

The problem is that many operate outside of the UK's borders. Some supposedly operate legally within their own borders, but not necessarily within the laws of the in-country hosting internet service providers (ISPs). Therefore, it is difficult, if not nigh on impossible, to ascertain whether these services are 'legal' or 'illegal'.

Furthermore, they all appear high in Google rankings. How does that happen?

Whilst it may be partly explained by the inbound links and keywords used by the more nebulous sites, surely they can not be using any different links and keywords to those used by Spotify or Last.fm. Could the higher ranking of sites like mp3raid, WuZAM and beemp3 be explained by advertising? Are Google, and other search engines, profiting from marketing 'illegal' downloads?

(c) Surka

The Independent notes that RnBXclusive.com was largely funded by advertising. Therefore, the owner was generating his 'fraudulent' income from those advertising on his site. Surely then, just as individuals are supposed to be responsible for checking the 'legality' of the site that they use, advertisers too must he held equally, if not, more accountable, given that they sustained this business.

Given that the 'legality' of downloading free music is unclear, and that Google, a trusted means of sourcing information, promotes these sites above others, it seems somewhat disproportionate that individuals can be heavily punished for transgressing a very blurred line. Especially when those propping up these 'illegal' services financially do not appear to have been sought after in the same way.

Whilst the official narrative runs that it is the artists who are the victims, artists themselves are offering free music downloads to build up their followings. It is possible that 'illegal' downloading might also provide them with a means to take greater control of their works and their income streams. 


If this be the case, then it is the record companies that are set to lose the ability to control the market, and the profits generated from it, not the artists. Therefore, downloading music freely is not in the commercial interests of businesses that currently do very nicely from it. 

Artists have regularly been, and continue to be, victims of legal 'theft'. It just appears more culturally palatable to portray males, aged 18-25, as criminals, rather than the 'legitimate' enterprises making large sums of money from it.

You may ask yourself, well, how did we get here?...

Aidan Burley & the face of crime (part 2)

Aidan Burley MP (c) altogetherfool

Further to my post on Margaret Moran and the inequalities inherent in criminal justice systems, it seems apposite to mention the (in)action of Aidan Burley, Conservative MP for Cannock Chase.


From what the papers say, the objective of those attending the party was: 

"We are trying to intimidate as many people as possible. A lot have been quite offended, especially one guy who was both Jewish and gay." 

Another member of the party allegedly toasted the ideology of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. This makes Burley an accessory to inciting to intimidation, and potentially hate crimes.


Returning to the UK riots, and those who incited them on Facebook, even though none occurred as a result of their actions, why is it that someone in political power is facing nothing more than an internal inquiry into his conduct into something that caused harm?


What took place in France is little different to what took place on the internet. The objective in both cases was to intimidate and incite. Whilst one might argue that these incidents took place in separate geographical locations (France and the UK), I would counter this. 


The incitements to riot took place online. This is a space not confined to geographical boundaries, as Brown (2003) makes clear:

"Cyberspace can not be treated as a neutral space, or as a definitvely different space, but neither can it grasped by existing notions of crime and the law."

Besides, as Wall (2007) points out we have two separate ways of policing cyberspace. Distal (offline), as in traditonal, conventional policing and proximal (online) through the likes of internet service providers and community vigilante actions. Therefore, this space is different, in that it has different crimes, bound by more than just the UK's criminal justice system.

Buchenwald disabled Jews (c) United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Moreover, who is to say that the crime has stopped? As a publicly elected official, I am assuming that Burley represents constituents from diverse backgrounds, with different needs. I wonder how the Jewish, homosexual, disabled communities in Cannock Chase feel about having an M.P. representing their interests, yet one who is willing to condone intolerance against their groups. 


I understand that what happened in France is illegal, although not in the UK. Given our recent political spats, it is possible that Burley will criminal charges. If he were to, then beware the political and mainstream media fallout. 


By recreating ideas of an 'us' and 'them' and a 'right' and 'wrong', we will no doubt hear that this incident was not really a crime, just because under UK law it is not. As such, he would have people in powerful positions distancing him from being constructed as a criminal. 


Due to these unequal power relations in society, the notion of crime is no longer an adequate term for understanding the experience that victims suffer and face. Ideas of 'social harm' would seem to be more appropriate for determining what constitutes what we call a crime.


Because as things stand, this case is just another example of what the face of crime looks like. 

Tales of the online: who perpetrates cybercrimes?

There have been a number of reports relating to the online theft and/or security of personal data.

The Guardian report that electronics giant, Sony, had been subjected to a cyber-attack from a "hacktivist" group called Anonymous. Sony allege that Anonymous stole names, email addresses and phone numbers of 25 million of its gamers, and that debit card details of customers in Western Europe were compromised during the attack. They claim that they are the victims of a cybercrime.

Criminologist, David Wall, classes hacking as a true cybercrime, as it only takes place within cyberspace; it could not ordinarily exist in the real world, were it not for the technology.  I can see how Sony might feel upset and disturbed by this attack. Perhaps it might explain why it took them 2 days to inform the US authorities of the breach and a further 4 days to tell their customers about it. It might also explain why they failed to attend a House of Representatives hearing on potential legislation for notifying the authorities of cyber-attacks that risk the loss of sensitive information. Now, the cynic in me might ask whether there might be other financial reasons why they failed to disclose this information, but, no, I can see that they were still in shock and loss, and that they were afraid to go out in case they were mugged and lost data all over again...hmmmm.

The real world victims are those customers who have had their data compromised. With Sony's track record of coming forward, there may be more than they have admitted to. Returning to Wall's typology of cybercrime, the theft of online details would be described as a hybrid cybercrime; identity theft and stolen debit/credit cards are a part of the everyday, real world crimes that people fall victim too. However, technology makes it easier for these types of crime to occur, as there is more scope for these types of crimes to take place.

The alleged perpetrators, Anonymous, are said to have conducted a separate, denial-of-service attack a couple of weeks earlier, in response to a civil hearing that Sony are taking against another hacker. Members of Anonymous are also thought to have been behind bringing down Mastercard, Visa and Paypal after pulling their services from Wikileaks. If Anonymous are responsible for the data theft as claimed by Sony, then there seems to have been a significant shift in their normal MO.

Many questions remain. Why might only customers from Western European countries be at risk of having their debit card details stolen? Why did Sony fail to disclose these attacks earlier? Why is it taking so long to implement cyber security legislation?

Away from this story, more general questions arise. What happens to the data that we provide online? Who receives my data?Where is my data stored? Why do companies need as much information as they do? Why do I need to register with them?

Perhaps one answer lies in the close relationship that commerce and government have. Big Brother Watch report that Tom Tom have sold location gathering data to the Dutch authorities for a significant profit. Effectively, each Tom Tom has a GPS unit that tracks each person's road use. Customers were told that the tracking system was an integral part of navigating through traffic. Every single Tom Tom user's information was then aggregated to provide a detailed plan of road use in the Netherlands. The Dutch Authorities have now passed this on to the Police, who have now set targeted speed traps, thereby increasing their revenue stream. Tom Tom deny any prior knowledge of how this information would be used. Apple, too, have recently been accused of keeping track of their customer's whereabouts.

Therefore, it seems that what is important in discussing cybercrime is the power to define it. True cybercrimes, such as hacking, only normally affect powerful state and commercial technologies. Governments and business are  therefore better placed to say what cybercrime is and who perpetrates it. Of course, governments will ensure that citizens take other cybercrimes, such as paedophilia, seriously, as this is a traditional cybercrime that everyone knows of. However, the misalignment in power relations between consumers, and the corporations and the state, means that they divert consumers' attention away from their cybercrimes. Passing on consumers' personal details, without asking, is theft. That, too, is a cybercrime.